Popehat

Elizabeth Warren and an Affirmative Action Flashback

/ Jack Marshall / 33 Comments

Over at Popehat, Patrick, the more flamboyant of the libertarian performance artists who blog there, has erected a harsh condemnation of Elizabeth Warren’s attenuated Native American pose, as well as her subsequent defense of it. A sample:

“The truth about Elizabeth Warren is that, when she chose to call herself a Cherokee Indian, she failed to consider that she might one day be called on her claims. The truth about Elizabeth Warren is that her decision to call herself a Cherokee Indian, at a time when she thought no one would ever call her on her claim, was more revealing of her character than all of her actions since becoming a politician in the spotlight. The truth about Elizabeth Warren is that she will lie about her background for professional advantage when she thinks that she can get away with it. The truth about Elizabeth Warren is that it is only now dawning on her that lying about one’s race in order to gain affirmative action benefits is considered, by many, to be no different from lying about one’s college diploma, or lying about winning the Congressional Medal of Honor. The truth about Elizabeth Warren is that she is no more deserving of a seat in the United States Senate than she is of a seat on the Cherokee Nation’s tribal council.”

I more or less agree with Patrick on all points, and the criticism of his post from commenters has reinforced that conclusion. For the most part, their protests boil down to “but she’s a liberal/Democrat/ ally of the 99% and running against a Republican, and that’s what matters, not her character!” If it hasn’t already become obvious, the official position of Ethics Alarms is that if the public chose its elected officials on the basis of demonstrated virtues like  integrity, courage, honesty, fairness and responsibility rather than partisan affiliation, single issues and official policy positions, the nation would be far better served. Patrick’s post, however, following on the heels of my own, also sparked a flashback to a conversation I had almost 40 years ago, when I was working in the administration of Georgetown Law Center. Continue reading →

The Lenahan Effect Meets The Streisand Effect

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

From the Legal Ethics Forum:

The Lenahan Law Firm in Dallas Texas has subpoenaed Google to release the real name of an anonymous critic who posted an un complimentary online review of the firm’s services. The firm wants to sue the poster for daring to question its performance by writing,

“Bad experience with this firm. I don’t trust the fake reviews here.”

For this perceived insult, the Lenahan firm wants to punish “Ben” to the tune of $50, 000 in damages.

Ironically, the lawsuit, rather than the review, proves to my satisfaction that “Ben” has a point. He was clearly expressing his opinion: it is up to him, and only him, whether he regards the experience of working with the Lenahan firm as “bad” or not. In the complaint, the firm says that the declaration that the positive reviews are “fake” alleges dishonesty and fraud by the firm. Utter nonsense. First of all, the allegation, fair or not, is also obviously an opinion. Second, “Ben” is saying that the reviews are fake, which could mean insincere, among other interpretations. He does not attribute them to the firm. He doesn’t say where they came from. He doesn’t know. Maybe I sent them.

On the screen shot included in the complaint, it clearly says that “0 of 3” people found “Ben’s” review helpful. For that, the firm wants $50,000 in damages, since that zero potential client was driven to another firm with his lucrative business.

Unbelievable.

Over at Popehat, lawyer-blogger (and Ethics Alarms 2011 Ethics Blogger of the Year) Ken has been carrying on a vigorous battle against online censorship of free expression by threats and lawsuits. His current target is a ridiculous faux lawyer who is now threatening Ken for pointing out the error of his ways. In his commentary as well as his various emails to the individual, Ken explains with admirable precision why opinions are not actionable assertions of fact, useful passages that I would recommend to the Lenahan Law firm. The firm’s efforts to bully critics by making an example out of “Ben” also unwisely incur the “Streisand Effect,” the online phenomenon by which efforts to censor information on the web has the perverse consequence of giving it more visibility and influence.

I don’t know if there is a name for the effect—“The Lenahan Effect,” perhaps?—by which a law firm’s willingness to pursue a spurious, unnecessary and excessive lawsuit against a former client for expressing his views about the firm’s work has the perverse effect of showing the world why that client feels the way he does, but that’s what the Lenahan lawsuit against “Ben” does.

That’s only my opinion, of course.

The Third Annual Ethics Alarms Awards: The BEST of Ethics 2011

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

Why is the The Best in Ethics 2011 only about 33% the size of the “Worst”?

This troubles me. My objective is not to be negative. The problem, I think, is that ethical conduct is still much more common than unethical conduct, and it is usually less controversial to identify: most of the time, good ethics is self-explanatory. All of us learn more from mistakes and misdeeds, our own and those of others, than we do from meeting societal standards. Most of what Ethics Alarms does is to try to identify unethical conduct, what was wrong with it, why it happened, and how we can discourage it.

Which is all well and good, but I still would like to make 2012’s Ethics Alarms  more positive year than this one, if possible. Help me, will you, find more topics involving good ethics, so next year’s Best list can hold its own with the Worst.

Here are the 2011 Ethics Alarms Awards for the Best in Ethics:

Most Important Ethical Act of the Year: Acquitting Casey Anthony. The Florida jury charged with deciding if Casey Anthony murdered her daughter faced the ire of a lynch mob-minded public that wanted the unsympathetic Anthony convicted, based on suspicious conduct and a dubious explanation,  but the evidence just wasn’t there. Thus the courageous twelve upheld the American values of fairness, objectivity, and justice under the law. It is interesting that the most ethical act of the year also sparked some of the most unethical arguments of the year, by too many citizens who benefit from our nation’s ideals without comprehending them. Continue reading →

Ethics Hero: Ken, Popehat Blogger

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

"You'll find what you're looking for over at Popehat!"

In the spirit of “Miracle on 34th Street,” in which a Macy’s Santa famously sends a shopper to its rival department store Gimbels (R.I.P.), I’d like to direct readers to run, not walk, over to Popehat, the witty and cantankerous blog that often covers similar territory as Ethics Alarms. There Ken, a practicing lawyer, has penned as strong an essay on ethical issues as you are likely to encounter. Writing about an unethical marketer’s outrageous tactics that included posing as a lawyer to intimidate bloggers, Ken powerfully expounds on the use of bogus lawsuit threats to stifle free speech and opinion on the web, and how to fight it.

This has been a continuing theme of his for a long time, to the point of qualifying as a crusade. It is a worthy crusade, and Ken, along with Popehat, is performing a public service with posts such as this one, colorfully entitled, in the Popehat fashion, “Junk Science And Marketeers and Legal Threats, Oh My!”

Good work, Ken.

A Close Call at Integrity Junction

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

 

What might have been...

It’s so easy to violate your integrity. It also can become a habit. I just had a close call at Integrity Junction myself, and, of all things, another blogger saved me. In part, this account is to thank him.

It was inevitable that the daily task of highlighting and discussing ethical issues and the ethical choices of others would generate some backlash, and it certainly has. As a lawyer, I know where most of the landmines are, but the danger of a deep-pockets corporation that has been properly chastised budgeting enough money to ruin you with a spurious lawsuit is always a possibility. In eight years of writing online about ethics, I have only been successfully bullied into taking down one post, that one regarding a viatical settlement company that was even more sleazy than the industry generally. The article relied heavily on direct quotes from the company’s own website, yet I received a stern “cease and desist” letter from the company’s toady of a general counsel, accusing me of libel and defamation.

2005 was a tough year at ProEthics, which was just getting established; the mortgage was a monthly challenge, and we had several financial emergencies. It was no time to spit in the wind, especially in defense of a web post that would probably get a total readership approaching the roster of a weekend bowling team. I pulled the article. It has bothered me ever since. But as a remarkable number of commenters on the “Mike McQueary and Me” post seem to be unable to comprehend, real world, pragmatic and yes, selfish considerations do factor into ethical decisions. The trick is to know how to do the factoring, and even more important, to have prepared yourself to do the analysis quickly when the time comes.

I recently received another cease-and-desist letter, demanding that I take down a post I wrote a few months ago, based on an AP story about the mismanagement of several 9-11 charities. One of the operators of the charities mentioned in the story and in my post has hired a reputation-cleaning outfit that is doing all of the dubious tasks such companies do, including complaining, harassing and threatening websites and blogs that include negative opinions or facts about their clients. The hit-group assigned to me has added bogus comments to the post (failing to mention that their opinions were bought and paid for), and repeatedly sent me ominous e-mails hinting at impending legal action. Continue reading →

The Second Annual Ethics Alarms Awards: The BEST of Ethics 2010

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

The Best in Ethics 2010. Not nearly long enough…but still a lot of men, women and deeds worth celebrating.

Most Important Ethical Act of the Year: Continue reading →

Anatomy of an Unethical Class Action Lawsuit, Badly Reported, Exposed by a Blogger

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Here is how the Washington Post begins its story about the most recent assault on McDonald’s by the people who want to control your eating and parenting habits:

“The D.C.-based nutrition watchdog group Center for Science in the Public Interest has helped a California mother file a class-action suit against McDonald’s, demanding that the burger chain stop marketing toys to children. The woman, Monet Parham of Sacramento, claims that the marketing of Happy Meal toys has interfered with her ability as a parent to provide her two children with a healthful diet. Here’s a quote:

“I am concerned about the health of my children and feel that McDonald’s should be a very limited part of their diet and their childhood experience,” Parham said. “But as other busy, working moms and dads know, we have to say ‘no’ to our young children so many times, and McDonald’s makes it that so much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonald’s is getting into my kids’ heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat.”

This is fairly typical of the hundreds of news stories on the web about the lawsuit. Over at Popehat, Patrick, the wittiest of the site’s witty staff, performs a crushing dissection of the lawsuit, the story, and the media’s incompetent reporting of it. You see, he writes..

“…Monet Parham is really Monet Parham-Lee.  Monet Parham-Lee is the name that Monet Parham uses professionally.  Monet Parham-Lee is represented in the suit by attorneys affiliated with the Center for Science in the Public Interest.  Meaning Ralph Nader.  Monet Parham-Lee is an employee of the California Department of Public Health. Monet Parham-Lee works in the “Cancer Prevention and Nutrition Section” of the California Department of Public Health. Meaning that Monet Parham-Lee is tasked, professionally, by the State of California with ensuring that Californians eat their vegetables.  The power that the State of California grants Monet Parham-Lee evidently is not enough.  Monet Parham-Lee is taking the law into her own hands, to ensure that not only her own children eat their vegetables, but that everyone else is forced to make their children eat vegetables.” Continue reading →

The Ethics of Commemorating Hiroshima

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

I missed it, but apparently the son of the commander of the Enola Gay told Fox News that for America to send a diplomatic delegation to Japan to memorialize the 65th Anniversary of the bombing was a de facto apology that for a necessary wartime action.

Over at Popehat, Patrick (some day I’ll figure out how to get these guys’ last names) offers an articulate and precise explanation of why James Tibbets is wrong, historically and ethically. An excerpt: Continue reading →

The Last Word on “Taser Boy”

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Today the New York Times weighed in with an editorial on the Phillies taser incident, not surprisingly siding with the kinder, gentler majority who have argued against the position taken here, sometimes, like my passionate friends over at Popehat, in a not so kind or gentle way. “The best course there [Philadelphia], as anywhere, is smarter, more attentive security in the stands,” the Times said. “Maybe it’s also higher Plexiglas, stiffer trespassing fines, less beer. Force must always be the last resort. Tasering a showboating kid is just plain excessive.”

<sigh!>

Continue reading →

Trusting Google

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

Google is a significant force in the dissemination of information, and that translates into power. The most ethical use of that power is no use at all: just give us a way to find what’s on the web, and let us do the filtering, thanks. As you probably know, Google has the credo “Don’t be evil,” a three-word invitation to controversy. What does Google regard as “evil,” exactly? Its Code of Conduct Preface explains:

“Googlers generally apply those words to how we serve our users. But “Don’t be evil” is much more than that. Yes, it’s about providing our users unbiased access to information, focusing on their needs and giving them the best products and services that we can. But it’s also about doing the right thing more generally — following the law, acting honorably and treating each other with respect.”

Good. That’s seems exactly right— unbiased access to information. Two recent situations, however, have raised questions about how unbiased Google really is. Continue reading →